Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Transgender ... or horny high school kid?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    wow, just wow.
    It must be so nice to be so much smarter than the experts in the medical field.
    May luck be with you then : )

    With luck and a prayer or three, MAYBE one of these wonderful "experts" won't kill you on the installment plan like they do so many of us.

    If you knew very much about "the medical field," you wouldn't so quickly defend them..

    ?


    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

      May luck be with you then : )

      With luck and a prayer or three, MAYBE one of these wonderful "experts" won't kill you on the installment plan like they do so many of us.

      If you knew very much about "the medical field," you wouldn't so quickly defend them..
      So let's see exactly what your medical credentials are then?
      How do you justify saying the people treating transgender people are wrong?

      ?


      • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
        Which is again a poor* analogy for the situation.

        ?


        • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
          So let's see exactly what your medical credentials are then?
          I have no reason to show you my education or medical credentials. I will encourage you to study and educate yourself though.

          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
          How do you justify saying the people treating transgender people are wrong?
          I never said that, I couldn't say that !

          There might be some things certain specialists do, or have done, that I think are foolish and unnecessary. In the end though, these things are between the patients bank acct., their Physician(s) and God. I put it all in the same category with breast enhancements etc. Fools, their money and addiction to admiring themselves in the mirror, ..

          ... the kind of mindless crap people do when they don't have enough to do.

          ?


          • Transgender murderer moved from womens prison after having sex with female inmates

            Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/05/transg...#ixzz4Y0C9Se4V

            ?


            • The results of liberal stupidity pushing perversions. It never ends, these people are simply evil.

              As they accuse anyone not in full agreement with them of hate, they demonstrate hate !!

              -------------------------------------

              ....contrary to what homosexual activists claim transgender-friendly policies and laws escalate the risk of women becoming victims of sexual attacks at the hands of men who claim to be women.

              ...so-called non-discrimination laws working to permit all people to use restrooms based on their gender identity as opposed to their natural sex at birth provide sexual predators with the opportunity to take advantage of the situation so they can partake in voyeurism and sexually assault women and children.

              Target stores which have been the subject of a nationwide boycott campaign led by the conservative American Family Association (AFA) for putting women and children at risk due to their transgender policies in womens facilities provided the venue for the latest recorded assault.

              The most recent case was reported on Jan. 17 by WPRI, concerning a man who mounted a camera inside the family bathroom at a Target store in Lincoln, Rhode Island,...

              Just months earlier, a Target on the other side of the country was the location where another sexual predator staged an assault on a woman.

              In a similar case from July 2016, in Idaho Falls, a man who identifies as transgender was arrested on one count of felony voyeurism for taking photos of another woman changing clothes at a Target store in Ammon, CPs Stoyan Zaimov informed.

              "Target's policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims and the proof keeps mounting."


              https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...s-in-restrooms

              ------------

              Baronelle Stutzman is a grandmother with a sweet demeanor who has never been accused by anyone of unkindness or incivility. Yet yesterday the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously labeled her a hate-filled homophobic bigot.

              Her crime? Politely declining to use her artistic talent to promote same-sex marriage. The two homosexual men who approached her to do a floral arrangement for their "wedding" were valued customers of Ms. Stutzman, even friends, proof that she did not discriminate against them or anyone else. She even recommended nearby florists who would be happy to help them.


              [ Didn't matter ! They used activist courts to try to ruin her ! Hateful homosexual bigots !!! ]

              ... her own conscience, animated by foundational Christian and biblical principle, would not permit her to promote same-sex marriage. As a consequence, the Snidely Whiplash of the Evergreen State, attorney general Bob Ferguson, literally sued her for everything she owns. Although he had to grit his teeth and settle for a fine, Ferguson wanted not just to take the assets of her business but her personal assets as well. It was his goal to strip her a 70-year-old grandmother of her business, her possessions, her bank accounts, and her house and leave her homeless and naked on the curb.

              [ This is what promoting sexual deviancy does to people. It makes them hateful and dangerous !! ]

              Ferguson at one point said Ms. Stutzman's First Amendment rights have not been violated because she can still believe whatever she wants about homosexual marriage. But Ferguson is wrong. The First Amendment does not just protect the freedom to believe Christian principle it protects the freedom to act on it.

              The specific guarantee is for the "free exercise" of religion, a constitutional right American Christians possess 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including the time they spend running a business. It is an inalienable right they have received from the Creator which means no earthly authority, including the Washington State Supreme Court, has the constitutional or moral authority to take it away from anyone.


              [ But someone who is full of hatred has no concern of this. Destruction is the goal ]

              I have been using the term "Gay Gestapo" for years, but lesbian columnist Tammy Bruce recently popularized the term, when talking about the Christian bakers in Oregon who got fined $135,000 and put out of business for making a decision similar to the one Ms. Stutzman made. Ms. Bruce is scandalized by the mean-spiritedness and raw hatred that animates the homosexual movement. There certainly is hate in the debate over homosexual rights, but it is not coming from conservatives. It is coming from the homosexual left.

              [ as I said ]

              ....the Gay Gestapo is bringing both tyranny and slavery back to America. When you compel someone to violate his conscience, what else is that but tyranny? And when you compel someone to labor against his will, what else is that but slavery? The only one being discriminated against here is Baronelle Stutzman.

              ...the verdict "sends a clear message around the country as well." It surely does. It sends the message that the LGBT crowd is not about marriage equality but homosexual supremacy. For gay activists, it is homosexuality ϋber alles ("above all else").


              https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...-kristallnacht

              ?


              • Yeah I'm going to take anyone talking about they "gay gestapo" and their unending power as a serious and valid position...never, not for a moment. It's idiocy based on fear and hate that rejects history and facts.

                ?


                • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                  Yeah I'm going to take anyone talking about they "gay gestapo" and their unending power as a serious and valid position...never, not for a moment. It's idiocy based on fear and hate that rejects history and facts.
                  Correct this issue .. "It's idiocy based on fear and hate that rejects history and facts."

                  It's clear that these people are full of hate !

                  The issue has nothing to do with "equality" or "rights," these are lies used to hide the destructive nature, the hate & the evil.

                  This is a group of people who have turned against themselves and society and are directing their self loathing outward towards everyone else.

                  There's no logic to it, it's very sick.

                  ?


                  • The Bakery violated Oregon state law plain and simple. No gestapo, not slavery. A business in Oregon isn't allowed to deeny service to people because of sexual orientation, race, sex, disability, age or religion by rule of law not the mob, nor activist judges.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                      The Bakery violated Oregon state law plain and simple. No gestapo, not slavery. A business in Oregon isn't allowed to deeny service to people because of sexual orientation, race, sex, disability, age or religion by rule of law not the mob, nor activist judges.
                      Is that right ?

                      Are you sure ?

                      The First Amendment does not just protect the freedom to believe Christian principle it protects the freedom to act on it.

                      Imagine a couple gay dudes asking an Islamic cake maker to bake 'em a cake for their "wedding."

                      The Muslim cake makers refuse because it violates their religious beliefs.

                      Do you honestly believe that;

                      1. The gay couple would attempt such a thing against a business run by Muslims ?

                      2. A court would rule against the Muslims in such a case ?

                      Isn't it interesting that we only see the haters go after Christian people running businesses ? Why is that do you think ?

                      How do you imagine this is going to play itself out with liberals wanting to import untold numbers of Muslims to America ?

                      It's going to get weird and it's going to serve yet another death blow to the stupidity of liberalism.

                      They aren't consistent in anything other than their lies, hypocrisies & inconsistencies.


                      What you're saying isn't correct in any case. As is pointed out; Liberals "aren't consistent in anything other than their lies, hypocrisies & inconsistencies."

                      ------------------------------------

                      What is Americas first-protected, most-important and longest-cherished politically protected right?

                      The answer?

                      The right of religious conscience.

                      The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and they punished them if they did not do what the government wanted. But the religious-minded colonists believed no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.

                      Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.

                      According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:

                      No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. [O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences. Thomas Jefferson

                      Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . Conscience is the most sacred of all property. James Madison, signer of the Constitution

                      The rights of conscience and private judgment . . . . are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and original chief justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

                      Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation, and The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God? William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution

                      Based on this long tradition, today:

                      Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;
                      Jehovahs Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;
                      The Amish are not required to complete the standard 12 years of education;
                      Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;
                      Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday.
                      There are many additional examples. It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states such as that of Washington, which declares:

                      Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion

                      But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Baronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist

                      ....was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florists rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washingtons so-called public accommodations law, which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers regardless of their sexual orientation.

                      Several things are wrong with this decision.

                      First, Baronelle has been economically fined and governmentally coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely held religious beliefs.

                      Second, the explicit wording of the Washington state constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because it doesnt want to uphold its provisions.

                      Third, the court elevated a state law (its public accommodations law) above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws always.

                      Fourth, John Adams described ours as a government of laws and not of men, but decisions like this make us just the opposite: The personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.

                      Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that the comparison of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell, but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.


                      http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/the-unite...f-not-america/

                      ?


                      • I suppose you might want to bone up on the business laws in Oregon where that bakery lawsuit over the same sex couple happened. Typing in bold and italics and a bigger font sporadically isn't going to change the actual laws that businesses actually have to operate under.

                        Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars but they can certainly get rounded up and shipped to a concentration camp happened to one of my grandfathers.
                        Jehovahs Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools and as there is no criminal punishment for failing to say the pledge it is irrelevant.
                        The Amish are not required to complete the standard 12 years of education as per state laws, like the state laws that that bakery ran afoul of.
                        Christian Scientists are often required to have their undergo medical procedures and face law suits and criminal prosecution when they fail to do so in many states.
                        Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday.... that's a new one for me.

                        I also wonder what you imagine all of this has to do with the range of transgender issues, you don't think the Tranny-Gestapo is going to come by and force you to have a surgery do you?

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                          I suppose you might want to bone up on the business laws in Oregon where that bakery lawsuit over the same sex couple happened. Typing in bold and italics and a bigger font sporadically isn't going to change the actual laws that businesses actually have to operate under.

                          Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars but they can certainly get rounded up and shipped to a concentration camp happened to one of my grandfathers.
                          Jehovahs Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools and as there is no criminal punishment for failing to say the pledge it is irrelevant.
                          The Amish are not required to complete the standard 12 years of education as per state laws, like the state laws that that bakery ran afoul of.
                          Christian Scientists are often required to have their undergo medical procedures and face law suits and criminal prosecution when they fail to do so in many states.
                          Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday.... that's a new one for me.

                          I also wonder what you imagine all of this has to do with the range of transgender issues, you don't think the Tranny-Gestapo is going to come by and force you to have a surgery do you?
                          The fact that, at it's core, it's against the Constitution to force someone to perform a service that he or she cannot abide with, is what we're discussing.

                          As James Madison said;

                          "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . Conscience is the most sacred of all property. - James Madison, signer of the Constitution

                          As Thomas Jefferson said;

                          [O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences. Thomas Jefferson

                          As John Jay said;

                          "The rights of conscience and private judgment . . . . are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and original chief justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

                          I bolded and made extra visible text that showed the incorrect decision of the Washington state supreme court to a case where a cake maker was fined for refusing to act against her religious beliefs. The court elevated itself above the states own constitution in order to do that. This wasn't a valid judgment - constitutions always trump statutory laws.

                          I notice you've ignored the opening scenario I offered where we . . .

                          Imagine a couple gay dudes asking an Islamic cake maker to bake a cake for their "wedding."

                          The Muslim cake makers refuse because it violates their religious beliefs.

                          Do you honestly believe that;

                          1. The gay couple would attempt such a thing against a business run by Muslims ?

                          2. A court would rule against the Muslims in such a case ?

                          Isn't it interesting that we only see the haters go after Christian people running businesses ? Why is that do you think ?


                          The fact that only lies, hypocrisies & double standards are making this an issue to even discuss is another problem.

                          It's not going to stand for long this issue.

                          ?


                          • I didn't ignore it, it's idiocy based on dellusion.
                            There is no law allowing Muslims to opperate business differently from other people.
                            The court would listen to the facts and consider the laws that apply.

                            Why do you imagine there is any place in this country where the legal system favors members of any religion?

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                              I didn't ignore it, it's idiocy based on dellusion.
                              There is no law allowing Muslims to opperate business differently from other people.
                              The court would listen to the facts and consider the laws that apply.

                              Why do you imagine there is any place in this country where the legal system favors members of any religion?
                              No delusion or imaginings, there's plenty of evidence. That you believe a "...court would listen to the facts and consider the laws that apply." and apply them equally to Muslim business owners - if at all - is where the delusion enters.

                              The courts created this mess when they imagined there was such a thing as "gay marriage." Kids imagine Santa Claus - thanks to adult ding dongs .. ... those same adult ding dongs who imagined "gay marriage" LOL Both are childish fantasies that don't exist, beyond the occasional children and deluded adults who want them to, or wish they did.

                              As earlier stated;" ... at it's core, it's against the Constitution to force someone to perform a service that he or she cannot abide with."

                              This mess created by the fevered imaginings of a few confused people, will be straightened out eventually.
                              In the meantime, we can have an entertaining time arguing about it and the fantasies, lies, hypocrisies & inconsistencies that created it LOL

                              ?


                              • The courts did not imagine "gay marriage".

                                Lawful commerce is not involountary servitude.

                                Don't hold your breath waiting for the rectification.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X